User talk:Anthony Muscio

Welcome!

Hello, Anthony Muscio, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Chloe Boreham. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Marianna251TALK 23:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Offer of help appreciated

Thank you Marianna251T for your welcome. You may have noted I made a reversal of an edit on Chloe Borehame page. An initial review suggests the user PlayPonyoForMe, which is itself a suspect name (asking for a speific sexual position), some edits suggest interference from a political position, and libellous edits of the aforementioned page. I am aware that Chloe Boreham has being the subject of stalking online and offline and any information that could be gleaned would be helpful, and incorrect edits reversed. What Shall I do? I a have only updated the first page I contributed since joining WikiPedia Anthony Muscio (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm glad you asked about this. The short answer is that if you feel something is incorrect on a page, feel free to edit it to fix the problem! However, the longer answer is that edits need to conform to Wikipedia's policies, plus other editors may have different views to yours, and if that's the case you'd need to get consensus for your edits via the article's talk page.

The most important thing to remember is that if you make a statement, you need to back it up with a reliable source and avoid saying anything not explicitly stated in the source. This is particularly the case for BLP (Biographies of Living Persons) articles. If you're thinking of removing potentially libellous statements, then it's usually okay to remove something without a source (leaving an edit summary to that effect), although it's good practice to do a quick google search first to see if you can find a source yourself. However, Wikipedia is not censored. If a statement is reliably sourced, then it shouldn't be removed just because it's particularly negative or positive. Wikipedia is (or at least is supposed to be) inherently neutral, and that means detailing the notable bad as well as the notable good.

The edit you removed from Chloe Boreham's page was an obvious piece of hoaxing vandalism. Vandalism is something different again and should be handled in a specific way, detailed in this guide, but the short version is that you should always remove vandalism if you see it - so again, thank you for doing so! I added a warning to PlayPonyoForMe's user talk page about the edit. If you see anything like this in future, the vandalism guide is really helpful in determining what you should do.

Overall, Wikipedia can be big and confusing, and the only real way to learn about it is to dive in. If you need help, you can always ask a question at the Teahouse - I'm happy to help, but I'm not always around. I hope this gave you the info you were looking for. Marianna251TALK 02:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]